A Los Angeles jury gave Merck & Co. Inc. another court victory Wednesday when it found the withdrawn pain medicine Vioxx did not cause the heart attack of a 71-year-old retired construction manager.
"The jury found Merck not liable," said Casey Stavropoulos, a spokeswoman for the company.
The case, the first Vioxx lawsuit to go to trial in California, was brought by Stewart Grossberg, who started taking Vioxx in 1999. He suffered a heart attack in 2001.
Merck, which said that as of June 30 it was facing at least 14,200 lawsuits from people who claim to have been harmed by Vioxx, pulled the drug from the market in September 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in those who took it for at least 18 months.
The company said it produced evidence during the trial showing the Grossberg has high cholesterol levels, atherosclerosis and a family history of cardiac problems.
Merck has repeatedly insisted it will defend itself on a case-by-case basis and has so far not wavered in the face of calls for settlement talks.
Kenneth Frazier, the company's general counsel, said in a statement Wednesday that the outcome of the Los Angeles trial validates that strategy.
Of the seven Vioxx trials completed prior to the California verdict, Merck had won four and lost three.
The second federal Vioxx trial began this week in New Orleans with a 62-year-old former FBI agent who blamed Vioxx for his heart attack.
Merck is coming off a victory last month in the latest Vioxx trial in state court in New Jersey. In that case, an Atlantic City jury found that a host of other risk factors and not Vioxx caused the heart attack of a 68-year-old grandmother who had sued Merck.